Room rates at $400 per night? Get real, this is Leucadia, not La Jolla. First of all we should demand that 25% of the rooms be affordable to people with incomes lower than the median local family. And of course the rooms must be bicycle-friendly to handle local traffic.
3 stories? With those high ceilings on each and every floor, who at the city will sell out first to allow this so Leucadia appropriate hotel?
The Planning Commission should be first in line.
Whoops, Brenda is first in line, so that should be easy to answer.
This is the dream that streetscam has been looking for, along with every real estate and developer interest for miles around. This is their vision for our 101.
Where is the CCC in this allowing to be built? After the recent travesty they approved, sadly, this should be another easy decision.
The land slopes up to the top of the bluff toward the ocean. Height of 30 feet is measured from the top of the slope, not the bottom, so it's easy to get three stories at the bottom. Only if the slope is more than 10%, then only a 12-foot height is allowed at the top, which will reduce the height at the bottom.
This is the way the code is written, for better or for worse.
6.1. Maximum Height. On and after the date this initiative measure becomes effective no building or structure shall exceed a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet. Height shall be measured from the lower of the natural or finished grade adjacent to the structure, to the highest portion of the roof immediately above.
4:58, if you have a quote from the Municipal Code that confirms what you posted, please show it.
Overheard at the local coffee shop that they are ready to build after the city invests $30 million to Coast Hwy 101 and forces out the riff raff stores. Well there goes my favorite t-shirt shop and taco shops. It was fun while it lasted.
The very same shops that vocally support Streetscape?
What about Fred's place? If he thinks support of the city's position now will spare him later, he's sadly mistaken. He'll just be one more small bump under Blakespear's steamroller on the road to "improvement."
3:05pm How can the city and CCC have approved of this 3 story monstrosity.
I have to call bs on your assumption.
Show us.
The CCC ignored their duty to protect access and egress to our beaches in Leucadia by letting the streetscam go forward.
Prop A has not been eliminated from consideration. The judge clearly defined the recent approval as a one time only slimy permission to go forward for the streetscam bs.
Nothing else was automatically approved by his faulty decision, most especially a project such as this that violates what this community has resisted.
Show us what basis you have to declare this a done deal.
We will be waiting for something substantial to back up your claim that the 3 story Encinitas Beach Hotel is a done deal.
Bring it on, David Meyer or Keith Harrison or any number of other profiteers looking to degrade our community.
Our specialness is something to be treasured and supported whenever we can.
The never ending pursuit of profit will continue. It is up to those of us who are not seeking to profit off of our living here to defend the quality of life that brought us here in the first place.
There is no way the city has already approved this plan without bringing this before the public.
5:42 If you'd do your homework before you post your erroneous assumptions, you'd find that the hotel has already been permitted by the city and the CCC.
If the building shown in the rendering exceeds 30 feet, the city can't allow it. The drawing could be the developer's mistake.
That hotel has been on the drawing board, so to speak, since long before the City Council approved Streetscape Plan 4A in January 2010. The plan had five roundabouts, including one at La Costa Ave.
There was a different hotel property owner then. They spoke at the council meeting, asked for a roundabout at Cabo Grill and volunteered to pay for it. The city added that roundabout to the plan, making the total six. I don't remember if the city accepted the owner's offer to pay for the sixth roundabout.
But it doesn't matter because that owner didn't build. The economy didn't allow it. That owner sold to the current owner/developer. The top dog's name is Larry Jackel. He didn't want the roundabouts at La Costa Ave or Cabo Grill. The city removed them from the plan. The developer says he'll pay to rebuild the intersection of 101 and La Costa Ave. Westbound will go straight onto the hotel property.
How many people do you know who will pay $400 a night to stay there?
The project was considered vested because they made some improvements for an overlook a while ago. Therefore, there was an interpretation that they could still build three stories.
If you want to challenge that interpretation, you could. They may be vested, but that was to build the original project. If they want to amend that then they have to go through the process anew for amendment - and meet current standards.
Also, certain permits expire if not acted on. So you could also argue that they previous permits expired, even though some physical improvement was made on the property.
So what if it's vested. Does that mean anybody who owned a property before Prop A and improved it — I'm thinking Marvin's motel, Leucadia Glass or Ed Wright downtown — could now build more than 30 feet in spite of Prop A?
In the illustration, the red car coming out is a Ferrari. The white one going in is a Porsche 911. Along the 101 northbound is a convertible Mercedes with the top down. Southbound are another Mercedes, and not one, but two more blue 911s. There are also a half dozen cyclists, including two riding side by side.
I love it because it has all of the elements that will make the KLCC miserable: people doing better than them financially and enjoying themselves, a beautiful sunset at a hotel they can’t afford to go to, cyclists happily enjoying exercise in the fresh air.
It’s as though someone told the artist to paint a picture that will induce KLCC seizures.
10:12 is the typical Republican asshole. Put down hard-working people of modest means, portray themselves as rugged individuals who made it big on their own, while they're really a class of leeches. They bleed individuals and the system dry for their selfish gain, then brag from the top of the heap. May they all suffer and die from excess.
10:12 here. I’m not wealthy by Encinitas standards, although that is a very high standard compared to national or global norms.
I don’t look down on anyone for having less. But I also don’t begrudge others who have more than I do, as the KLCC do. They use the word profit as a slur out of envy and pettiness.
There’s an old joke about communism and how it drags everyone to the lowest common denominator living standard:
In the most remote reaches of Siberia lived two families. Conditions were horrible, and both families were barely surviving. Both families were in poverty with no material luxuries whatsoever. The only difference between the two families was that one had a mangy old goat that became healthy enough to provide milk for a few weeks in summer. One day, the regional commissary came through the area and met with the families. He said the communist party sent him on a mission to find ways to make the lives of the people better. When he asked the family with the goat for ideas, they had none. When he asked the goatless family for their ideas, they asked if the commissary would shoot their neighbor’s goat.
Your accusations are presumptuous, stupid and wrong.
You want to impose your way on people who don't want it. Those people are in the majority. You're in the minority. The only way you can succeed is to cheat.
When I think of “impose your way on other people,” I think of people who tell other people what they can do with their private land.
This hotel doesn’t harm me in the slightest. It’s really not my business. The investors are taking a significant risk, and could lose their shirts. I hope it works out for them and they make a lot of money, because I generally wish people around me well with their endeavors, as long as they aren’t harmful.
If a project was approved for three stories, then the value of the underlying land would be increased.
As long as the new project comes in at the same height as the previous project, I’m not sure Prop A applies.
There is a concept in law called regulatory taking that limits how government can reduce the economic value of private property without compensation for the full value of the change. It’s a fifth amendment issue.
If a buyer relied on the approved permit building envelope in the valuation and purchase price for the property, then it’s possible they can either sue to prevent a regulatory taking, or demand the city pay millions of dollars in lost economic value if forced to build a smaller project.
But was the previous owner's project approved at three stories and, if so, would that approval transfer to the new project, which is wholly different from the old?
And if projects approved before Prop A that now violate Prop A are grandfathered, wouldn't that be specified in the municipal code?
A permit means permission to build a project. If a permit can be revoked at any time, then when is it considered final?
Imagine you want to build a house. You go through the city process and eventually obtain a permit. You haven’t broken ground yet, but you’ve spent a lot of money on architects, lawyers, and you have signed a construction loan and you are committed to pay that mortgage to the bank. You have also contracted with a firm to do the grading, and paid them half up front.
Do you think the city can change the rules and make you start over? What about after the grading is done, but no construction? What about when the slab has been poured, but no walls are up? What about when the home is half finished? What about when the home is completed and awaiting final inspection?
If Prop A were to intend to revoke permits already granted, it would have to be very specific about where in the construction process a permit can be revoked.
In fact, if Prop A revoked existing permits, then it’s provably an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional in CA.
Unless you move dirt around, or have a development agreement, case law says that laws can change what you can or can't build on a property.
I am surprised anyone would think that $400 a night would work. You can stay on a Airbnb bluff top for the same rate and have a whole house to yourself.
11:14's comparison is elaborate but is it apt? The 2008 approval was a different project by a different owner. The current owner has had the property barely more than a year. His project is different from the 2008 project. Grandfathering a different project for the sake of avoiding Prop A doesn't sound legal.
It just boggles my mind the extent of the illiteracy of this crowd when it comes to construction,development, and the planning and permitting process!! For decades y'all have been railing against greedy developers, incompetent staff, a corrupt city council, opportunistic lawyers and other egregious examples of malfeasance and mayhem - yet you don't understand the simplest aspect of the permitting process. Once a project has been approved by the city, that's it...it's a done deal. The project can change hands multiple times and the city doesn't get another bite at it. The city can change all the rules as it pertains to development and it still doesn't get another bite. The citizens can pass an initiative to institute a building moratorium and it still doesn't stop the project.
....and all this time I though you guys knew what you were talking about.........
But the project changed and isn't the same. I understand that three stories was a part of the original project, but if it changes then it needs to go through a substantial conformance determination.
Also, it is being built as a non-conforming structure, which will limit future improvements on the property. If they want to remodel later - they can't.
This project is approved and all development rights are long vested. The time to challenge it past quite some time ago. I actually opposed aspects of it at one time. Now as part of the development team, I'm involved to make sure the sand gets on the beach, setbacks are appropriate, and all environmental conditions are respected and applied. I get that a lot of you anonymous posters want to keep everything in Leucadia the same, but it's just not going to happen. And in another 20 years, your kids (and mine) will point at the stuff being built today and argue that's the "real Leucadia" that should be respected and preserved.
Didn't pencil out? Huh? It didn't pencil out because the economy tanked. The economy is back (sort of), there's new hotel supply coming on line (Osd, Solana Beach) and voila - with no change to the project it now pencils out! Imagine that........
My prediction is that IF it gets built, it goes belly-up in 2021. Ownership changes.
Global growth is slowing - dragging our economy with it. Earning season in 2019 is kicking off on a bad start and it will carry through to 2020. This project will eat it one way or another. Room rates will drop to $280. Then by 2025 it will be back under new ownership and renting $400 a night.
Wait a minute - I thought greedy developers always make tons of profit at the expense of the surrounding community? Are you saying that there may be some risk here and that they might lose $$. Blasphemy I say!!!
Actually, boutique hotel construction is pretty robust. A new one just opened in San Diego downtown, Santa Barbara has had 2 in 2018, and there's 2 projects in Napa/Sonoma wine country that will open in 2019. So while there's always risk, these projects should do pretty good. Besides, the hotel market has just come off some pretty flat growth in 2016/17.
And the real leucadia left a long time ago. Your kids and mine won't live here unless they are still living with me in my home, that I can still afford at today's salary.
That's how it works in desirable areas. May be sad, but true. Send your kids to school. Let them work their way back in.
Don't look to HCD's "affordable" housing scam to help them, either. To qualify for the few units our city ekes out of developers they'd have to have incomes at the poverty level - then get in line.
Someone is claiming that this is a different project than the one permitted.
If true, then it’s pretty simple to challenge legally.
There was an office building down by Montgomery Field that they forced to remove a couple of stories after it was completed. Something about a required FAA approval that they failed to get.
Can someone provide specifics about what was approved, vs. what is being built? Number of rooms, number of stories, total square feet, setbacks, height, etc. Links to the original permit proposal would also be helpful.
If the person claiming the project has changed isn’t just making shit up, then producing some evidence should be simple.
A developer designed the project way back, and the city approved it in 2008. A second developer bought the property in late 2017 and put up a website with an illustration of the project in late 2018 or early 2019.
Do you really think the second guy stuck to the first guy's design 10 years later?
Yes, you can dive into the city's records and find that he didn't.
Each time the permit was renewed the city looked at it. Could it be different architecturally? Perhaps. Might some of the rooms have different uses than before? Maybe. Have the construction plans been modified to take advantage of innovations in technology? Probably. Did the footprint or airspace change? Probably not.
Why are you so hellbent on this, and what outcome do you desire? Is this perception bias at work here?
It's a three-story monstrosity, it violates the municipal code, and it's wrong for a Leucadia bluff top.
And $400 a night is ridiculous. What are the rates at the two hotels immediately north in Carlsbad, and isn't there a third hotel planned even closer in Ponto?
You're being subjective - what hotel isn't? The Best Western? The Days Inn?
it violates the municipal code,
Flat out wrong - no it doesn't.
and it's wrong for a Leucadia bluff top.
Subjective again - City and CC don't agree.
And $400 a night is ridiculous.
$400 is not ridiculous depending on the amenities. So some rooms will go for $285, and others will be $1,100...go figure.
What are the rates at the two hotels immediately north in Carlsbad, and isn't there a third hotel planned even closer in Ponto?
The hotels to the north are not boutique hotels so their rates will be lower. Instead, you should compare it to Montage or the Ritz in Laguna, Bacaro in Santa Barbara, etc. Or even the one planned for the bluffs above dog beach in Del Mar.
If the new guy hasn't changed the old guy's plan, show it.
The new guy's plan violates Prop A, which is incorporated in the municipal code, so, yes, the plan is a violation.
If you think enough people are going to pay $400 a night to make the hotel viable economically, you're dreaming. Encinitas is not comparable with the "boutique hotel" sites you mentioned.
Saw the old plan, see the new drawing. They're different. You say they're the same. Show it.
What are the attractions? People pay $400 a night, then go to Legoland? The Flower Fields? Way east to Safari Park? There are already plenty of hotels in Solana and Del Mar for the track.
The beach at Ponto south of the jetty fills up on summer weekends.
Do you know about May Gray and June Gloom? Are you aware that the coastal strip is often under a cloud, especially in the summer?
Do you know that the southbound freeway is often at a standstill on summer weekends? Do you see that 101 and La Costa Ave will often be bumper to bumper in one lane because of the traffic volume and the long signal at Leucadia Blvd?
How many people want to pay $400 a night to deal with that?
How on earth does the "new plan" violate Prop A when the plan was approved prior to the passage of Prop A? What is so freakin' hard to understand here?
Wrong. I’m saying if you declare that what is being built is inconsistent with what was approved in the permit, then you should be able to substantiate that statement with evidence.
The burden to prove a claim is on the person making the claim.
You are full of shit until you can demonstrate that the builder intends to risk over $100M on an illegal construction project.
I'll support that nice looking high end hotel over the homeless camps, section 8 housing, and porta-potties that our current council are currently promoting.
Here you go, folks - go nuts!! https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2000/2/T24a-2-2000.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3t5ch7SNFOVEpeT6t8zKKslitNoyNNnx2TJ0CHzH9AkL2_O_RQ403LfLw
OK, show the 2008 Coastal Commission permit and how it differs from the 2000. And show that none of the following has changed. Note that it says 30 feet and the quote above says two stories:
"The subject project consists of the demolition of three single-family residences, the relocation of seven mobile homes, and the construction of an approximately 138,460 sq.ft., two-story plus basement level, 30-foot high, 130-unit resort hotel. Also included is the construction of a 5,128 sq. ft. restaurant, a 420 sq. ft. retail shop, 1,600 sq. ft. of meeting rooms, 4,072 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to banquet facilities, a 3-level, 320-space subterranean parking garage, a swimming pool with cabanas, approximately 92,000 cubic yards of excavation. As proposed, all structures would be set back 55 feet from the edge of the coastal bluff. The proposal also provides for the installation of several public access amenities that include a state park overlook, a blufftop overlook, a stairway to the state park parking lot, and public access through the site. In addition, the proposed development will include the consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and the vacation of 2 public access easements."
I do believe what was vested under the AVCO test confers legal right to build the project as to which the proponent incurred expenses. Therefore the 2000 project was vested. That project was two stories. Not the three story version. It appears that someone got swindled. And it is Encinitas residents.
If a newer permit(s) were issued since the 2000 permit then they aren't vested any more than those entitled at the time vesting was created.
For example, if the city puts a total ban on hotels in the city, then JMI can still build a two story hotel. Not a three story one.
Their portfolio boats one boutique hotel - the inn at RSF. It used to rent out at $400 a night prior to JMI taking over in 2012. Now you can stay there for mid to high $200s.
From the Coastal Commission January 2000 staff report:
"2. Extension Request Procedures. In general, an approved coastal development permit will expire after two years unless development has commenced. Standard Condition #2, which is attached to all permits, establishes this expiration date. If development does not commence within the two year time period, the permittee may seek an extension. The Commission's regulations allow it to grant one-year extensions."
So maybe the developer got around that requirement by building the observation spot on the bluff, and that qualified as starting construction. If not, he'd have to have a CDP approved in 2016 or 2017 to build in 2019.
However, the project the Commission approved in February 2000 specified two stories and 30 feet as the maximum height. Even if Prop A doesn't apply because city approval of the project preceded it, the Commission's height limit does.
Marco has made a lot of comments about this on Encinitas Votes. He helped them get what they wanted. Interesting that not one of the City Council members has mentioned a thing about this. And this weeks City Manager report has nothing in it either. What are they trying to hide?
I know several council members are on here. I'd like to ask them if they realize that the manager has lost complete control over the planning department.
Has building permits been issued? Can we appeal that to the City Council.
You just won't give up, will you? As long as they conform to the height limit they can build as many stories as they want - by going down instead of up. Yes, building permits have been issued. No, you can't appeal to the City Council. Yes, the CCC realizes what's going on here.
You are the very personification of perception bias!
10:49 - to appeal an existing and issued building permit the burden of proof is on the one appealing, so have at it! Add to that the City doesn't have to grant you a hearing either, in which you have to sue and your appeal moves to the courts. No, I'm not with the CCC, no I'm not the Council, I just have a lot of experience in this area.
You are about 15 years too late to argue about and appeal the permit, unless there is a case that (1) the permit should not have transferred to a new owner, or (2) someone failed to renew the permit legally at some point, and it should have expired.
Those are the only two legal avenues still open.
If they build above their permit, then you can sue to force them to change the building, but they haven’t built anything yet.
This building was forced to tear down the top 20 feet:
I think the people above are saying that their vested rights run with the permit that was alive at that time. Their vested rights aren't malleable to change beyond those existing rights, just so as far as they can't bend in the other direction if there was an imposition of a one-story requirement after vesting. The project's plans needed to be amended at that point.
I don't know the law, but I can see their point. It makes for good reading anyway. It's like if I tell my husband I'm going out for a mid-day errand, but return after 2am. He will likely question my decision making. Alternatively, I could check in with him and change plans so everyone is on the same page. Its a horrible analogy. But making sense of it.
As soon as they actually build above 2 stories and/or 30 ft.
But understand that the definition of 2/30 that applies will be the legal definition that was in force when the permit was approved.
If the legal rules at the time were 2 stories and 30 feet as measured above the natural slope, and allowing for excavation and additional below grade construction, then the builder has every right to do that.
Prop A cannot be enforced retroactively—no law can. It’s called an ex post facto law, and it’s prohibited by both the CA and US constitution.
Imagine if they passed the 18th Amendment outlawing alcohol and decided to enforce it retroactively. Anyone who purchased, possessed or consumed alcohol in the years leading up to the 18th Amendment could be arrested. That’s why retroactive enforcement of laws is banned.
That's a great point 1:28. But there is a flaw. Both with your analogy and the subject at hand.
If you purchased the alcohol, but haven't consumed it, then I think it would still be illegal to drink it.
Here, we have an AVCO vesting test. The developer wants to build a project where the rules have changed. AVCO vesting confers rights bestowed at the time a financial costs was borne. Here we have someone that was going to build a project and it has changed. Therefore, like your analogy, they are toast.
They are vested on the original project, no more and no less. Project plans can't change without amendment or substantial conformance determination. Since laws have changed since then, they can't drink the juice, so to speak, even though they bought it.
I think the developer will say that the project hasn’t changed since the permit was issued.
The project hasn’t changed, what has changed are the regs defining how height is measured, and whether a story below grade counts.
If the project was approved under the 2000 rules, and it hasn’t changed, then they are probably good to go, even if it doesn’t conform to the rules we have today.
There must be a specific point in time when the requirements are locked. Whether that is at permit approval or ground breaking—I don’t know. But regs and building codes are changing all the time, and it’s not possible to manage a construction project if the rules are changing during the build.
The key question is: what is the legal date for this project when the requirements were locked?
"an approximately 138,460 sq. ft., two-story plus basement level, 30-foot high, 130-unit resort hotel. Also included is the construction of a 5,128 sq. ft. restaurant, a 420 sq. ft. retail shop, 1,600 sq. ft. of meeting rooms, 4,072 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to banquet facilities, a 3-level, 320-space subterranean parking garage, a swimming pool with cabanas, approximately 92,000 cubic yards of excavation. As proposed, all structures would be set back 55 feet from the edge of the coastal bluff. The proposal also provides for the installation of several public access amenities that include a state park overlook, a blufftop overlook, a stairway to the state park parking lot, and public access through the site. In addition, the proposed development will include the consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and the vacation of 2 public access easements."
Permits expire. Has the 2000 permit been renewed?
I seriously doubt the 2019 project hasn't changed from what the previous developer planned 19 years ago.
I like the analogy better if that someone, lets' call them Pete, bought a 12 oz. beer from a local store. Instead of drinking it right a way - put in the fridge. A few months later, he pours a little out for the homies. But he doesn't drink the rest. He simply puts it back in the fridge. Then a few months go by and he tries taking it back to the same local store for an exchange, maybe for something a little bigger, and frizzy, lets say for a 16 oz. spirit/cooler. The store manager feels awkward and doesn't know what to do because he knows what's right and what's wrong, but clearly needs to have some sort of customer service. Sits in silence and waits. Waits some more. A good paying customer comes in to interrupt the silence and sees the problem, knows how to handle it, and asks the person to leave. Or do, what's right and buy a brand new drink.
Looks great!!!!
ReplyDeleteRoom rates at $400 per night? Get real, this is Leucadia, not La Jolla. First of all we should demand that 25% of the rooms be affordable to people with incomes lower than the median local family. And of course the rooms must be bicycle-friendly to handle local traffic.
ReplyDeleteApprove it.
ReplyDeleteLooks nice, and most of the traffic will be on Carlsbad roads.
ReplyDeleteIt's right at the intersection of 101 and La Costa so most of its traffic will jam up the 2 lanes on La Costa.
DeleteCue people who want it to look shittier.
ReplyDeleteHas anybody told them the height limit is the lower of two stories or 30 feet?
ReplyDeleteTraffic will pile up in one lane from there to the red light at Leucadia Blvd and east on La Costa Avenue.
How will guests and locals like that?
3 stories? With those high ceilings on each and every floor, who at the city will sell out first to allow this so Leucadia appropriate hotel?
ReplyDeleteThe Planning Commission should be first in line.
Whoops, Brenda is first in line, so that should be easy to answer.
This is the dream that streetscam has been looking for, along with every real estate and developer interest for miles around. This is their vision for our 101.
Where is the CCC in this allowing to be built? After the recent travesty they approved, sadly, this should be another easy decision.
The land slopes up to the top of the bluff toward the ocean. Height of 30 feet is measured from the top of the slope, not the bottom, so it's easy to get three stories at the bottom. Only if the slope is more than 10%, then only a 12-foot height is allowed at the top, which will reduce the height at the bottom.
DeleteThis is the way the code is written, for better or for worse.
6.1. Maximum Height. On and after the date this initiative measure becomes effective no building or structure shall exceed a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet. Height shall be measured from the lower of the natural or finished grade adjacent to the structure, to the highest portion of the roof immediately above.
Delete4:58, if you have a quote from the Municipal Code that confirms what you posted, please show it.
This project was approved in 2008, before Prop A took effect.
Delete11:45 So what? Where in the code does it say such projects are grandfathered in?
DeleteThe property had a different owner with a different plan in 2008. The current owner's current plan was not approved in 2008. It didn't exist then.
DeleteOverheard at the local coffee shop that they are ready to build after the city invests $30 million to Coast Hwy 101 and forces out the riff raff stores. Well there goes my favorite t-shirt shop and taco shops. It was fun while it lasted.
ReplyDeleteThe very same shops that vocally support Streetscape?
DeleteWhat about Fred's place? If he thinks support of the city's position now will spare him later, he's sadly mistaken. He'll just be one more small bump under Blakespear's steamroller on the road to "improvement."
Fred can be the room service valet at the hotel.
DeleteThat may well be where he ends up.
DeleteIt already has all city and CCC approval. If the prelims to construction haven't already started, they soon will.
ReplyDelete3:05pm How can the city and CCC have approved of this 3 story monstrosity.
ReplyDeleteI have to call bs on your assumption.
Show us.
The CCC ignored their duty to protect access and egress to our beaches in Leucadia by letting the streetscam go forward.
Prop A has not been eliminated from consideration. The judge clearly defined the recent approval as a one time only slimy permission to go forward for the streetscam bs.
Nothing else was automatically approved by his faulty decision, most especially a project such as this that violates what this community has resisted.
Show us what basis you have to declare this a done deal.
We will be waiting for something substantial to back up your claim that the 3 story Encinitas Beach Hotel is a done deal.
Bring it on, David Meyer or Keith Harrison or any number of other profiteers looking to degrade our community.
Our specialness is something to be treasured and supported whenever we can.
The never ending pursuit of profit will continue. It is up to those of us who are not seeking to profit off of our living here to defend the quality of life that brought us here in the first place.
There is no way the city has already approved this plan without bringing this before the public.
5:42 If you'd do your homework before you post your erroneous assumptions, you'd find that the hotel has already been permitted by the city and the CCC.
ReplyDeleteIf the building shown in the rendering exceeds 30 feet, the city can't allow it. The drawing could be the developer's mistake.
That hotel has been on the drawing board, so to speak, since long before the City Council approved Streetscape Plan 4A in January 2010. The plan had five roundabouts, including one at La Costa Ave.
ReplyDeleteThere was a different hotel property owner then. They spoke at the council meeting, asked for a roundabout at Cabo Grill and volunteered to pay for it. The city added that roundabout to the plan, making the total six. I don't remember if the city accepted the owner's offer to pay for the sixth roundabout.
But it doesn't matter because that owner didn't build. The economy didn't allow it. That owner sold to the current owner/developer. The top dog's name is Larry Jackel. He didn't want the roundabouts at La Costa Ave or Cabo Grill. The city removed them from the plan. The developer says he'll pay to rebuild the intersection of 101 and La Costa Ave. Westbound will go straight onto the hotel property.
How many people do you know who will pay $400 a night to stay there?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-encinitas-hotel-project-20190111-story.html
Quite a few. It looks like a really nice 5 star. Stoked.
ReplyDeleteOK, invite them here, and the locals with slash their tires.
DeleteNah. Locals wouldn’t do that.
DeleteAssholes might.
And then assholes will go to jail.
The project was considered vested because they made some improvements for an overlook a while ago. Therefore, there was an interpretation that they could still build three stories.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to challenge that interpretation, you could. They may be vested, but that was to build the original project. If they want to amend that then they have to go through the process anew for amendment - and meet current standards.
Also, certain permits expire if not acted on. So you could also argue that they previous permits expired, even though some physical improvement was made on the property.
Good luck.
So what if it's vested. Does that mean anybody who owned a property before Prop A and improved it — I'm thinking Marvin's motel, Leucadia Glass or Ed Wright downtown — could now build more than 30 feet in spite of Prop A?
ReplyDeleteKeep Leucadia Funky & Free of Hotels!
ReplyDeleteAny palms greased in this "process?"
ReplyDeleteThe better question: "any not greased?"
DeleteHere’s why I love this:
ReplyDeleteIn the illustration, the red car coming out is a Ferrari. The white one going in is a Porsche 911. Along the 101 northbound is a convertible Mercedes with the top down. Southbound are another Mercedes, and not one, but two more blue 911s. There are also a half dozen cyclists, including two riding side by side.
I love it because it has all of the elements that will make the KLCC miserable: people doing better than them financially and enjoying themselves, a beautiful sunset at a hotel they can’t afford to go to, cyclists happily enjoying exercise in the fresh air.
It’s as though someone told the artist to paint a picture that will induce KLCC seizures.
Don’t forget showing a 3-story building.
DeleteIt could be better.
They could have shown a roundabout, and made it more clear that alcohol would be served.
Marvy, Marvy, Marvy. Time to hang up the klcc cane, dontcha think, 10:12?
DeleteAnti-Streetscapers line both sides of Neptune and hardly have financial woes...but you know that.
No roundabout at La Costa Ave or Cabo Grill.
Delete10:12 is the typical Republican asshole. Put down hard-working people of modest means, portray themselves as rugged individuals who made it big on their own, while they're really a class of leeches. They bleed individuals and the system dry for their selfish gain, then brag from the top of the heap. May they all suffer and die from excess.
Delete10:12 is Marvy Charles. Flip the joke name and you'll get it.
DeleteWhoever it is sounds like the kind of guy who would drown the others in a lifeboat if he was there with them and a limited supply of fresh water.
Delete10:12 here. I’m not wealthy by Encinitas standards, although that is a very high standard compared to national or global norms.
DeleteI don’t look down on anyone for having less. But I also don’t begrudge others who have more than I do, as the KLCC do. They use the word profit as a slur out of envy and pettiness.
There’s an old joke about communism and how it drags everyone to the lowest common denominator living standard:
In the most remote reaches of Siberia lived two families. Conditions were horrible, and both families were barely surviving. Both families were in poverty with no material luxuries whatsoever. The only difference between the two families was that one had a mangy old goat that became healthy enough to provide milk for a few weeks in summer. One day, the regional commissary came through the area and met with the families. He said the communist party sent him on a mission to find ways to make the lives of the people better. When he asked the family with the goat for ideas, they had none. When he asked the goatless family for their ideas, they asked if the commissary would shoot their neighbor’s goat.
This is the mindset of the KLCC.
9:43
DeleteYour accusations are presumptuous, stupid and wrong.
You want to impose your way on people who don't want it. Those people are in the majority. You're in the minority. The only way you can succeed is to cheat.
When I think of “impose your way on other people,” I think of people who tell other people what they can do with their private land.
DeleteThis hotel doesn’t harm me in the slightest. It’s really not my business. The investors are taking a significant risk, and could lose their shirts. I hope it works out for them and they make a lot of money, because I generally wish people around me well with their endeavors, as long as they aren’t harmful.
The KLCC moron's imposition is Streetscape, not the hotel.
DeleteThis 30 year old defunct project is being pushed by attorney Marco.
ReplyDeleteIf a project was approved for three stories, then the value of the underlying land would be increased.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the new project comes in at the same height as the previous project, I’m not sure Prop A applies.
There is a concept in law called regulatory taking that limits how government can reduce the economic value of private property without compensation for the full value of the change. It’s a fifth amendment issue.
If a buyer relied on the approved permit building envelope in the valuation and purchase price for the property, then it’s possible they can either sue to prevent a regulatory taking, or demand the city pay millions of dollars in lost economic value if forced to build a smaller project.
But was the previous owner's project approved at three stories and, if so, would that approval transfer to the new project, which is wholly different from the old?
DeleteAnd if projects approved before Prop A that now violate Prop A are grandfathered, wouldn't that be specified in the municipal code?
Good questions.
DeleteI don’t know. But if Prop A invalidated previously approved permits, wouldn’t that also need to be spelled out in the language of Prop A?
If Prop A doesn't say it's retroactive, wouldn't the presumption be that it is?
DeleteAbsolutely not.
DeleteA permit means permission to build a project. If a permit can be revoked at any time, then when is it considered final?
Imagine you want to build a house. You go through the city process and eventually obtain a permit. You haven’t broken ground yet, but you’ve spent a lot of money on architects, lawyers, and you have signed a construction loan and you are committed to pay that mortgage to the bank. You have also contracted with a firm to do the grading, and paid them half up front.
Do you think the city can change the rules and make you start over? What about after the grading is done, but no construction? What about when the slab has been poured, but no walls are up? What about when the home is half finished? What about when the home is completed and awaiting final inspection?
If Prop A were to intend to revoke permits already granted, it would have to be very specific about where in the construction process a permit can be revoked.
In fact, if Prop A revoked existing permits, then it’s provably an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional in CA.
Unless you move dirt around, or have a development agreement, case law says that laws can change what you can or can't build on a property.
DeleteI am surprised anyone would think that $400 a night would work. You can stay on a Airbnb bluff top for the same rate and have a whole house to yourself.
Responding to the first comment, Prop A took a lot of rights from a lot of people, if that was indeed true.
Delete11:14's comparison is elaborate but is it apt? The 2008 approval was a different project by a different owner. The current owner has had the property barely more than a year. His project is different from the 2008 project. Grandfathering a different project for the sake of avoiding Prop A doesn't sound legal.
DeleteProve it’s a different project.
DeleteIt just boggles my mind the extent of the illiteracy of this crowd when it comes to construction,development, and the planning and permitting process!! For decades y'all have been railing against greedy developers, incompetent staff, a corrupt city council, opportunistic lawyers and other egregious examples of malfeasance and mayhem - yet you don't understand the simplest aspect of the permitting process. Once a project has been approved by the city, that's it...it's a done deal. The project can change hands multiple times and the city doesn't get another bite at it. The city can change all the rules as it pertains to development and it still doesn't get another bite. The citizens can pass an initiative to institute a building moratorium and it still doesn't stop the project.
ReplyDelete....and all this time I though you guys knew what you were talking about.........
Sheesh.......
But the project changed and isn't the same. I understand that three stories was a part of the original project, but if it changes then it needs to go through a substantial conformance determination.
DeleteAnd permits also expire.
It didn't, and they don't.
DeletePermits expire.
DeleteAlso, it is being built as a non-conforming structure, which will limit future improvements on the property. If they want to remodel later - they can't.
Permits expire, unless they are actively renewed. This one was.
DeleteWrong. This permit was modified and amended. Different than renewed.
DeleteJust a bit of info for those interested:
ReplyDeletehttps://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2008/4/Th19f-4-2008.pdf
More
ReplyDeletehttps://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2006/3/T22a-3-2006.pdf
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2007/11/F20b-11-2007.pdf
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2014/8/Th14a-8-2014.pdf
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2006/1/Th9c-1-2006.pdf
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/epacket/2006/5/W11a-5-2006-a1.pdf
This project is approved and all development rights are long vested. The time to challenge it past quite some time ago. I actually opposed aspects of it at one time. Now as part of the development team, I'm involved to make sure the sand gets on the beach, setbacks are appropriate, and all environmental conditions are respected and applied. I get that a lot of you anonymous posters want to keep everything in Leucadia the same, but it's just not going to happen. And in another 20 years, your kids (and mine) will point at the stuff being built today and argue that's the "real Leucadia" that should be respected and preserved.
ReplyDeleteHey Coach - build the original project. No more and no less and you have a deal.
DeleteThe problem is that it is a different project, because the old one didn't pencil out.
Didn't pencil out? Huh? It didn't pencil out because the economy tanked. The economy is back (sort of), there's new hotel supply coming on line (Osd, Solana Beach) and voila - with no change to the project it now pencils out! Imagine that........
Delete20 years? The economy has gone through two full cycles since then.
DeleteAnd, yet, it is a different project.
Just build what was previously approved and there are no issues. Otherwise, it is not the same project.
Guys, look around. Economy tanking.
DeleteMy prediction is that IF it gets built, it goes belly-up in 2021. Ownership changes.
Global growth is slowing - dragging our economy with it. Earning season in 2019 is kicking off on a bad start and it will carry through to 2020. This project will eat it one way or another. Room rates will drop to $280. Then by 2025 it will be back under new ownership and renting $400 a night.
Wait a minute - I thought greedy developers always make tons of profit at the expense of the surrounding community? Are you saying that there may be some risk here and that they might lose $$. Blasphemy I say!!!
DeleteActually, boutique hotel construction is pretty robust. A new one just opened in San Diego downtown, Santa Barbara has had 2 in 2018, and there's 2 projects in Napa/Sonoma wine country that will open in 2019. So while there's always risk, these projects should do pretty good. Besides, the hotel market has just come off some pretty flat growth in 2016/17.
Cute, 9:12. Like when Hubbard says we'll "thank her later" when we see how awesome her improvements are? Riiiight.
DeleteHow's that boutique hotel "The Ray" (formerly Portofino) doing?
DeleteAnd the real leucadia left a long time ago. Your kids and mine won't live here unless they are still living with me in my home, that I can still afford at today's salary.
ReplyDeleteThat's how it works in desirable areas. May be sad, but true. Send your kids to school. Let them work their way back in.
DeleteDon't look to HCD's "affordable" housing scam to help them, either. To qualify for the few units our city ekes out of developers they'd have to have incomes at the poverty level - then get in line.
Sure Leucadia will change. Residents' concern is how.
ReplyDeleteSomeone is claiming that this is a different project than the one permitted.
ReplyDeleteIf true, then it’s pretty simple to challenge legally.
There was an office building down by Montgomery Field that they forced to remove a couple of stories after it was completed. Something about a required FAA approval that they failed to get.
Can someone provide specifics about what was approved, vs. what is being built? Number of rooms, number of stories, total square feet, setbacks, height, etc. Links to the original permit proposal would also be helpful.
If the person claiming the project has changed isn’t just making shit up, then producing some evidence should be simple.
A developer designed the project way back, and the city approved it in 2008. A second developer bought the property in late 2017 and put up a website with an illustration of the project in late 2018 or early 2019.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think the second guy stuck to the first guy's design 10 years later?
Yes, you can dive into the city's records and find that he didn't.
Each time the permit was renewed the city looked at it. Could it be different architecturally? Perhaps. Might some of the rooms have different uses than before? Maybe. Have the construction plans been modified to take advantage of innovations in technology? Probably. Did the footprint or airspace change? Probably not.
DeleteWhy are you so hellbent on this, and what outcome do you desire? Is this perception bias at work here?
It's a three-story monstrosity, it violates the municipal code, and it's wrong for a Leucadia bluff top.
DeleteAnd $400 a night is ridiculous. What are the rates at the two hotels immediately north in Carlsbad, and isn't there a third hotel planned even closer in Ponto?
You think we should vote on what their room rate should be?
DeleteCan we also vote on your asking price when you sell your house?
None of your ef-ing business; that’s the price per room.
2:48, so you’re saying that they have changed the project without any evidence.
DeleteGot it.
It's a three-story monstrosity,
DeleteYou're being subjective - what hotel isn't? The Best Western? The Days Inn?
it violates the municipal code,
Flat out wrong - no it doesn't.
and it's wrong for a Leucadia bluff top.
Subjective again - City and CC don't agree.
And $400 a night is ridiculous.
$400 is not ridiculous depending on the amenities. So some rooms will go for $285, and others will be $1,100...go figure.
What are the rates at the two hotels immediately north in Carlsbad, and isn't there a third hotel planned even closer in Ponto?
The hotels to the north are not boutique hotels so their rates will be lower. Instead, you should compare it to Montage or the Ritz in Laguna, Bacaro in Santa Barbara, etc. Or even the one planned for the bluffs above dog beach in Del Mar.
If the new guy hasn't changed the old guy's plan, show it.
DeleteThe new guy's plan violates Prop A, which is incorporated in the municipal code, so, yes, the plan is a violation.
If you think enough people are going to pay $400 a night to make the hotel viable economically, you're dreaming. Encinitas is not comparable with the "boutique hotel" sites you mentioned.
So you get to be lazy and make statements without evidence, and it’s assumed to be true unless someone else goes and does the hard work?
DeleteWhat a turd.
Saw the old plan, see the new drawing. They're different. You say they're the same. Show it.
DeleteWhat are the attractions? People pay $400 a night, then go to Legoland? The Flower Fields? Way east to Safari Park? There are already plenty of hotels in Solana and Del Mar for the track.
The beach at Ponto south of the jetty fills up on summer weekends.
Do you know about May Gray and June Gloom? Are you aware that the coastal strip is often under a cloud, especially in the summer?
Do you know that the southbound freeway is often at a standstill on summer weekends? Do you see that 101 and La Costa Ave will often be bumper to bumper in one lane because of the traffic volume and the long signal at Leucadia Blvd?
How many people want to pay $400 a night to deal with that?
What's the median income in Encinitas?
Unless you are the CFO of Fenway Capital, then their business plan is not your concern.
DeleteHow on earth does the "new plan" violate Prop A when the plan was approved prior to the passage of Prop A? What is so freakin' hard to understand here?
DeleteWell, 5:56, the new plan that's to be built and the old approved plan that won't be built are different.
DeleteDoesn't look like a good investment, and why would anybody pay that much when they can get the same thing a lot cheaper?
Oh, that's right, it's a boutique!
Prove the plan is different.
DeleteShow us the rooms and square footage before and after.
I call bullshit on you.
9:24 You say proving the projects are the same is simple. Apparently, you have both the old owner's and the new owner's plans. Show they're the same.
DeleteWrong. I’m saying if you declare that what is being built is inconsistent with what was approved in the permit, then you should be able to substantiate that statement with evidence.
DeleteThe burden to prove a claim is on the person making the claim.
You are full of shit until you can demonstrate that the builder intends to risk over $100M on an illegal construction project.
See 12:37 below. Documentary proof you're bullshitting.
DeleteCheck the thread on Encinitas Votes. Those folks *really* hate the Leucadia bluff hotel project.
ReplyDeleteI'll support that nice looking high end hotel over the homeless camps, section 8 housing, and porta-potties that our current council are currently promoting.
ReplyDeleteThe project looks great and I look forward to it.
Here you go, folks - go nuts!!
ReplyDeletehttps://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2000/2/T24a-2-2000.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3t5ch7SNFOVEpeT6t8zKKslitNoyNNnx2TJ0CHzH9AkL2_O_RQ403LfLw
This is dated 2000.
DeleteAll the news reports say the relevant permits were approved in 2008.
The drawing in the Coastal Commission documents sure looks different from the illustration on the new owner's website.
DeleteThen there's this:
"No structure on the site is permitted to exceed 2 stories or 30 feet in height . . ."
So who's bullshitting?
Okay. Good luck with your lawsuit, dipshit.
DeleteYou are looking at a 2000 permit, when there is a 2008 permit.
Why would a company put over $100M at risk by obviously violating their permit?
OK, show the 2008 Coastal Commission permit and how it differs from the 2000. And show that none of the following has changed. Note that it says 30 feet and the quote above says two stories:
Delete"The subject project consists of the demolition of three single-family residences, the relocation of seven mobile homes, and the construction of an approximately 138,460 sq.ft., two-story plus basement level, 30-foot high, 130-unit resort hotel. Also included is the construction of a 5,128 sq. ft. restaurant, a 420 sq. ft. retail shop, 1,600 sq. ft. of
meeting rooms, 4,072 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to banquet facilities, a 3-level, 320-space subterranean parking garage, a swimming pool with cabanas, approximately 92,000 cubic yards of excavation. As proposed, all structures would be set back 55 feet from the edge of the coastal bluff. The proposal also provides for the installation of several public access amenities that include a state park overlook, a blufftop overlook, a stairway to the state park parking lot, and public access through the site. In addition, the proposed development will include the consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and the vacation of 2 public access easements."
I do believe what was vested under the AVCO test confers legal right to build the project as to which the proponent incurred expenses. Therefore the 2000 project was vested. That project was two stories. Not the three story version. It appears that someone got swindled. And it is Encinitas residents.
DeleteIf a newer permit(s) were issued since the 2000 permit then they aren't vested any more than those entitled at the time vesting was created.
For example, if the city puts a total ban on hotels in the city, then JMI can still build a two story hotel. Not a three story one.
"Here you go, folks - go nuts!". Too late.
DeleteJMI is over there head.
ReplyDeleteTheir portfolio boats one boutique hotel - the inn at RSF. It used to rent out at $400 a night prior to JMI taking over in 2012. Now you can stay there for mid to high $200s.
So who is really fooling who?
The hotel isn't on any Coastal Commission agenda in 2008. I searched all 12.
ReplyDeleteWhoever is claiming a three-story project got Commission approval in 2008 is wrong.
If the developer is going by the 2000 approval, that one was two stories and a height limit of 30 feet.
Well, this was fun. Looks like 3-story idea is back to the drawing board.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Coastal Commission January 2000 staff report:
ReplyDelete"2. Extension Request Procedures. In general, an approved coastal development permit will expire after two years unless development has commenced. Standard Condition #2, which is attached to all permits, establishes this expiration date. If development does not commence within the two year time period, the permittee may seek an extension. The Commission's regulations allow it to grant one-year extensions."
So maybe the developer got around that requirement by building the observation spot on the bluff, and that qualified as starting construction. If not, he'd have to have a CDP approved in 2016 or 2017 to build in 2019.
However, the project the Commission approved in February 2000 specified two stories and 30 feet as the maximum height. Even if Prop A doesn't apply because city approval of the project preceded it, the Commission's height limit does.
Like someone said - Investors are in over their heads. Hopefully the City hasn't made any ill-advised promises.
ReplyDeleteRadio silence from the developer's shills.
ReplyDeleteMarco has made a lot of comments about this on Encinitas Votes. He helped them get what they wanted. Interesting that not one of the City Council members has mentioned a thing about this. And this weeks City Manager report has nothing in it either. What are they trying to hide?
ReplyDeleteI know several council members are on here. I'd like to ask them if they realize that the manager has lost complete control over the planning department.
ReplyDeleteHas building permits been issued? Can we appeal that to the City Council.
Does the CCC realize what's going on here?
You just won't give up, will you? As long as they conform to the height limit they can build as many stories as they want - by going down instead of up. Yes, building permits have been issued. No, you can't appeal to the City Council. Yes, the CCC realizes what's going on here.
DeleteYou are the very personification of perception bias!
9:21, just stepping in....Are you with the CCC? Then how do you know? Are you the Council? Then how do you know?
DeleteYou don't know.
Yes, you can appeal building permits to City Council. It is law. Check conspiracy of Walmart and grow some knowledge.
10:49 - to appeal an existing and issued building permit the burden of proof is on the one appealing, so have at it! Add to that the City doesn't have to grant you a hearing either, in which you have to sue and your appeal moves to the courts. No, I'm not with the CCC, no I'm not the Council, I just have a lot of experience in this area.
Delete10:58, isn't the proof that they exceed 30 feet? I am confused.
DeleteExceed 30 ft?
DeleteThey haven’t built anything yet.
You are about 15 years too late to argue about and appeal the permit, unless there is a case that (1) the permit should not have transferred to a new owner, or (2) someone failed to renew the permit legally at some point, and it should have expired.
Those are the only two legal avenues still open.
If they build above their permit, then you can sue to force them to change the building, but they haven’t built anything yet.
This building was forced to tear down the top 20 feet:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-unrepentant-sunroad-agrees-lower-building-2007jun27-story,amp.html
I think the people above are saying that their vested rights run with the permit that was alive at that time. Their vested rights aren't malleable to change beyond those existing rights, just so as far as they can't bend in the other direction if there was an imposition of a one-story requirement after vesting. The project's plans needed to be amended at that point.
DeleteI don't know the law, but I can see their point. It makes for good reading anyway. It's like if I tell my husband I'm going out for a mid-day errand, but return after 2am. He will likely question my decision making. Alternatively, I could check in with him and change plans so everyone is on the same page. Its a horrible analogy. But making sense of it.
to 12:23 - so there is time to still sue if they build above the two story, thirty foot height requirement of the CCC? When can we do that? and how?
DeleteAs soon as they actually build above 2 stories and/or 30 ft.
DeleteBut understand that the definition of 2/30 that applies will be the legal definition that was in force when the permit was approved.
If the legal rules at the time were 2 stories and 30 feet as measured above the natural slope, and allowing for excavation and additional below grade construction, then the builder has every right to do that.
Prop A cannot be enforced retroactively—no law can. It’s called an ex post facto law, and it’s prohibited by both the CA and US constitution.
Imagine if they passed the 18th Amendment outlawing alcohol and decided to enforce it retroactively. Anyone who purchased, possessed or consumed alcohol in the years leading up to the 18th Amendment could be arrested. That’s why retroactive enforcement of laws is banned.
That's a great point 1:28. But there is a flaw. Both with your analogy and the subject at hand.
DeleteIf you purchased the alcohol, but haven't consumed it, then I think it would still be illegal to drink it.
Here, we have an AVCO vesting test. The developer wants to build a project where the rules have changed. AVCO vesting confers rights bestowed at the time a financial costs was borne. Here we have someone that was going to build a project and it has changed. Therefore, like your analogy, they are toast.
They are vested on the original project, no more and no less. Project plans can't change without amendment or substantial conformance determination. Since laws have changed since then, they can't drink the juice, so to speak, even though they bought it.
I think the developer will say that the project hasn’t changed since the permit was issued.
DeleteThe project hasn’t changed, what has changed are the regs defining how height is measured, and whether a story below grade counts.
If the project was approved under the 2000 rules, and it hasn’t changed, then they are probably good to go, even if it doesn’t conform to the rules we have today.
There must be a specific point in time when the requirements are locked. Whether that is at permit approval or ground breaking—I don’t know. But regs and building codes are changing all the time, and it’s not possible to manage a construction project if the rules are changing during the build.
The key question is: what is the legal date for this project when the requirements were locked?
This is the project the CCC approved in 2000:
ReplyDelete"an approximately 138,460 sq. ft., two-story plus basement level, 30-foot high, 130-unit resort hotel. Also included is the construction of a 5,128 sq. ft. restaurant, a 420 sq. ft. retail shop, 1,600 sq. ft. of meeting rooms, 4,072 sq. ft. of floor area devoted to banquet facilities, a 3-level, 320-space subterranean parking garage, a swimming pool with cabanas, approximately 92,000 cubic yards of excavation. As proposed, all structures would be set back 55 feet from the edge of the coastal bluff. The proposal also provides for the installation of several public access amenities that include a state park overlook, a blufftop overlook, a stairway to the state park parking lot, and public access through the site. In addition, the proposed development will include the consolidation of 4 lots into 1 lot and the vacation of 2 public access easements."
Permits expire. Has the 2000 permit been renewed?
I seriously doubt the 2019 project hasn't changed from what the previous developer planned 19 years ago.
I like the analogy better if that someone, lets' call them Pete, bought a 12 oz. beer from a local store. Instead of drinking it right a way - put in the fridge. A few months later, he pours a little out for the homies. But he doesn't drink the rest. He simply puts it back in the fridge. Then a few months go by and he tries taking it back to the same local store for an exchange, maybe for something a little bigger, and frizzy, lets say for a 16 oz. spirit/cooler. The store manager feels awkward and doesn't know what to do because he knows what's right and what's wrong, but clearly needs to have some sort of customer service. Sits in silence and waits. Waits some more. A good paying customer comes in to interrupt the silence and sees the problem, knows how to handle it, and asks the person to leave. Or do, what's right and buy a brand new drink.
ReplyDeleteThis project is in Phony Tony's 'hood. He reads and posts on this blog.
ReplyDeleteWhat say you, PT? Can you answer the many questions posed above? If not, why not?
2/22/19 here: http://wavestoride.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete2/22/19 here: http://wavestoride.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete2/22/19 here: http://wavestoride.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete2/22/19 here: http://wavestoride.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete